A common question
that Parsi youths and sometimes even the parents ask
is why Parsis, as a community, are averse to
inter-caste or mixed marriages.

This issue can be
addressed from three perspectives, viz.,

1.Historical,

2.Religious, and

3.Social

Let us examine
each one separately.

1.HISTORICAL:

One of the main
causes for the downfall of the once mighty Sasanian
Empire in Iran
was inter-marriage among members of the Royal family.We shall provide two instances of the havoc
played by such marriages: (1) Khusro I, also known as
Anosharavan or Noshirwan-e-Adil,
(531-579 A.D.) married a RomanChristian princess for
political reasons (i.e., peace through marriage between Rome
and Iran).Writes Dastur Dr. H.K.Mirza in ‘Outlines OfParsi History’, “Khusro’s son Anoshzad was born of
his Christian wife and had adopted Christianity.Instigated by his mother, Anoshzad
rose in rebellion against his own father.....He marched to the capital and
banking on help from the Christians and the Romans, he proclaimed himself king.”(2) “KhusroII,
also known as KhusroParvez,
was proclaimed Emperor in 590.BehramChobin, who had rebelled
against Hormazd IV, marched also against the new
Emperor.Khusro
tried to apease him, but in vain.The army sent by Khusro
was defeated; he escaped with a few soldiers and invoked the Romans for help.The RomanEmperor, Maurice,
did not miss this opportunity and immediately sent military and financial help
and gave his daughter, Maria, in
marriage to Khusro.”Concludes Dastur Dr.Mirza, “There was tragic chaos in the Royal family,
particularly after the death of KhusroII.Intrigue, deception
and lust for power and other dangerous vices were rampant.The princes instigated and actively supported
by their mothers of foreign extraction and foreign faith, played havoc in the
royal family, in aristocracy and in state affairs.”

It is also
interesting to note from a historical point of view that after the fall of the Sasanian empire, Parsis, to
escape Arab persecution, moved to China, Central Asia, Punjab and even as far
as Europe.Over time, they intermarried,
lost their distinct religious and ethnic identity and
faded into oblivion.THE ONLY GROUP THAT
SURVIVED was the one that came to Div and later moved to Sanjan
on the Gujarat coast.This was not an accident.They survived because they decided to lay
down some ground rules and not compromise on any one of them.They compromised on certain social and
cultural issues such as giving up the Farsi (Persian) language for Gujarati,
laying down weapons, adopting Indian dress, etc.But on religious
issues such as wearing sudrehkusti,
Atashparasti (reverence
for fire), dokhmenashini (the Zoroastrian method for the disposal of the dead),
marrying only within the fold and not converting others to the Faith, and Manthravani (praying in the original language of the
Revelation - Avesta), they made no compromise.The Parses not just survived in India,
but actually flourished because they decided not to
tamper with the fundamental ground rules they had laid down for their survival
as a religious and ethnic community.

2.RELIGIOUS:

Marriage from a
Zoroastrian point of view is a religious duty/discipline.It is an institution that pleases DadaarAhura Mazda,
according to the ‘Vendidad’.Marriage from a Zoroastrian point of view is
a sacrament and not just a civil contract.This sacrament can only be given by a qualified Zoroastrian priest when
both parties to the marriage are Parsi Zoroastrians.A number of religious texts, in particular,
the Avestan ‘Vendidad’ and
the Pahlavi ‘Dinkard’ have
proscribed mixed marriages.These texts
have considered “mixing of the seed” (intermarriage) as sinful.

3.SOCIAL:

The Parsi aversion for mixed marriages should not be confused
with “racial superiority” or “communal prejudice”.For Parsis,
marrying within the community is important from the point of view of “self-preservation”.Parsis are a
historic people perpetuating an unique ethic of living.They are torchbearers of a rich culture and
heritage.Intermarriage leads to a
dilution of faith and weakening of cultural bonds.Parsis do not claim
racial superiority.But
as MaritnLutherKing
said, “I want the white man to be my brother, not my brother-in-law”.Parsis treat all
Indians as their brothers, but would prefer not to have them as their
brothers-in-law.

Factors That
Promote Intermarriages

Noted
researcher, Dr.HuzanDavar, had studied the problem of inter-marriages among Parsis for three years for the VictoriaUniversity of Manchester.Some of her observations are quite pertinent.She states:“… Although a large percentage of intermarried
women stated that most Zoroastrian girls had difficulty finding eligible
(educated) Zoroastrian men, when they were asked whether they personally had
any difficulties finding a Zoroastrian spouse, the majority(75%) said, ‘no’,
because they had never made an effort to find a Zoroastrian spouse.The other important factor that has promoted intermarriages
is a change of attitude where young people do not think it is important to
marry within the fold.The change of
attitude has occurred for a number of reasons: westernization, secularization,
higher education and, above all, all lack of religious education and religious
identity which has facilitated assimilation into the host society.”Regarding the issue of accepting the children
of inter-married parents, Davar has observed, “I have
observed through my research work that even though a large number of children
of intermarried men and women are being ‘navjoted’
today, more often than not, being a Zoroastrian is usually a temporary, often a
24-hour phenomenon for them - more for the emotional satisfaction and comfort
of the children’s parents and grandparents.Due to a lack of religious education, our children seldom end up as
full-fledged enduring and contributing members of the Zoroastrian religion and
our community.”

Does Davar offer a solution to the problem of mixed marriages? Indeed, she does.She recommends: “If the community is to
survive in the 21st century, the first thing we need to do is get
our priority straight.Our first
priority should be religious and ethnic education, not just for children, but
for all interested individuals.”

Did The Early Parsi Settlers Inter-Marry?

It is often bandied about by heterodox Parsis
that after their arrival in India, in the wake of Arab persecution, Parsis began inter-marrying with members of the Hindu
community, since there were little or no Parsi women
accompanying Parsi men.This argument, to say the least, is a figment
of the believer and propagator’s fertile imagination.However, on this issue, we would like the
eminent pathologist, Dr.P.K.Antia, to take over.In his paper, ‘Parsis
and Blood Diseases’ published in the Diamond Jubilee Volume of the B. D. Petit Parsi General Hospital, he writes:“It is wrong to assume as many do, that after
landing in India, Zoroastrians had to marry with the local Indian population
and there was hybridization of immigrant Zoroastrians.Iranian Zoroastrians left Persia to save their sacred fire and it is not
plausible that they left their women fold to the mercy of the Arabic invaders.They brought their women folk and inbreeding
continued in India with the same religious zest that made them leave their motherland, to
protect their religion.Besides, the
hospitable Hindus had a parochial caste system, which would not allow
inter-marriages even in their sub-castes, let alone outside racial or ethnic
groups.The immigrant Zoroastrians, true
and faithful to their word, never dared alienate the feelings of their
hospitable rulers.Thus, exceptions
apart, the immigrant Zoroastrians did not marry outside their community.Hence the process of hybridization of racial
mixing did not occur in Parsis.After the initial stage of seven centuries of
struggling, settling and giving a heavy toll of life
against new environmental conditions, Zoroastrians breeding amongst themselves
settled in their new home.This natural
selection, without hybridization, has increased certain genetic traits
manifested by proclivity to certain disease patterns.Interbreeding and mixing with other races
would have led to dilution of these traits.”

Marriage According To Zoroastrianism

The Zoroastrian religion contemplates and recognizes only that union as
“marriage”, in which both the spouses are born Parsi
Zoroastrians and profess the MazdayasniZarthoshti Religion.According to Zoroastrianism, marriage is a sacrament and not just a
contract.Such a sacrament can only be
conferred by a qualified Parsi priest, when both the
parties to the marriage are Parsi Zoroastrians.

In a letter dated 29th September, 1964, addressed to the Joint Secretary, ParsiPunchayet, Bombay, the learned Dasturji Dr.KaikhusrooMinocherJamaspAsa writes, “The Zoroastrian religion considers
marriage as a sacrament which necessiates certain
religious ceremonies and, as such, does not recognize civil marriages.Marriages contracted between persons of
different faiths may be considered legal by the secular state, but recognition
of such marriages cannot be forced upon the community.”According to ‘Vendidad’
(3.2): “That place is happy over which a holy man builds a house, with fire,
cattle, wife, children and good followers.”In ‘Vendidad’
(4.47), DadaarAhura Mazda states, “O SpitamaZarathushtra! Indeed I thus recommend here unto thee, a man with a wife above a magava (saint), a man with a family above one without a
family, a man with children above one who is without children.”However, in Chapter 18, paragraphs 62 and 63,
“mixing of seeds” (mixed marriages) has been abhorred and considered an act,
which displeases DadaarAhura Mazda.ErvadKavasjiEduljiKanga’s translation (Bombay, 1876) of ‘Vendidad’
18.61-62 runs as follows:“Zarathushtra:
‘Most beneficient spirit, creator of the corporeal
world, O Righteous one! Who grieves thee
with the greatest grief? Who torments
thee with the greatest torments?’ Thereupon Ahura Mazda replied: ‘Indeed he/she is committing the sin
of impudicity who being a Mazdayasni mixes his/her
seed with that of non-Mazdayasni.’ ”It is
interesting to note here that the ‘Vendidad” does not
discriminate between the sexes.ErvadKanga explains in his notes: “This paragraph shows that there is
interdiction between the marriage of a Mazdayasni man or a woman with that of a non-Mazdayasni man or a woman and that is (to be known) as ill
matched couple (Gujarati, Ka-Jodun).”

It is important to note here that the ‘Vendidad’
is the only ‘Nask’ out of the twenty-one ‘Nasks’ (volumes) compiled during the time of Prophet Zarathushtra, to have survived in its entirety.

The ShahnamehOn Mixed Marriages

There is hardly a Zoroastrian in India
or the world who needs an introduction to the ‘Shahnameh’ of FirdaosiTusi.The epic is replete with exploits of Iranian
Kings and Glory of the Iranian Tokham (lineage).For brevity’s sake, we shall cite only two
important references.In the first
instance, Godafrid, the daughter of Gozdahm, says, “Be khandidaangethbaafsoosgoft: keIranbaTurannayaabandjoft.” – “She laughed and observed ... that never, never shall
there ever be a nuptial union of an Iranian with a Turanian
(i.e., non-Iranian).”In the second
instance, Gordieh, the sister of BahramChubin, says, “DadugoftshuikazIranbuvadAzutokhme - Ye maanaviraanbuvad”
– “An Iranian husband is welcome for our lineage is preserved thereby.”

References On
‘Tokham’ (Lineage) In Other Zoroastrian Scriptures

While reciting the FravardinYasht, we chant, “We worship
with reverence, the Fravashi of the holy Gayomard, who first heard the Word of Ahura
Mazda.The TOKHM-E-KAYAN of the Iranian
race was procreated by him.” (FravardinYasht 87).In ChithremBuyaat, we pray, “ChithremBuyaatahminmaaneTokhmpithurembuyaatahminmaane” – “May Chithra (Seed -Tokhm-e-Kayan) be (increased) in this house.May the prosperity (of this chithra) be in this house.May the blessedness of the Tokhm-e-kayan be in this house.”

In the same ChithremBuyaat, we also pray;
“Paedaaibaadandarin in maanevehaan”, meaning “May there be born among themselves
(in this house of the Mazdayasnis) good ones (i.e., MazdayasniZarathushtis).”

The Ashirwad
Ceremony

Certain ignoramuses within the
community hold the view that ‘Ashirwad’ is merely a
ceremonial benediction and has nothing to do with the Zoroastrian religion.Nothing could be further from the truth.Marriage, according to Zoroastrianism, is a “tarikaat” (a spiritual discipline).The Ashirwad
ceremony, which mainly has sublime compositions in Pazend
and two powerful AvestaNirangs
(talismanic formulae) spiritually binds the couple in
matrimony.Any other form of marriage,
from the Zoroastrian point of view, is invalid in Nature.Those with keen ears may have heard priests
chant during the Ashirwad ceremony, “Avardaadvaaaeen-i-Deen-i-Mazdayasni”, meaning “According to the
foremost law and creed of the Mazdayasni Religion
(this lady is offered as a wife...).”

The Special Marriage Act, 1954

The controversy, several years ago, concerning the rights of Parsi
women marrying non-Parsis under the Special Marriage
Act had generated more heat than light.It
needs to be emphasised that the Act merely provides a
protective platform to those who desire to transgress their religion by
violating the sanctity of the Ashirwad ceremony.The Special Marriage Act, 1954 neither gives any special right nor privilege to
Zoroastrians entering into civil marriage with non-Zoroastrians as far as the
Zoroastrian religion is concerned, to accept them as Parsi
Zoroastrians after marriage.There is NO
PROVISION in the Special Marriage Act, laying down that a woman marrying under
the Act shall continue to enjoy the same religious rights and benefits after the
marriage, or that she will be entitled to the use of the institutions of her
religion in which she was born or which she professed immediately before her
marriage.The Special Marriage Act
confers no special civil right to anyone in matters of religion.All the 51 sections and 5
schedules of the Act are silent on this subject.Under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, if a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian religion wished to marry
under the Act, he or she had to make a declaration that her
or she did not profess the Zoroastrian religion.In the present Act (i.e., the Special
Marriage Act, 1954), there is no such provision for making such a declaration
(i.e., renouncing one’s religion).The
absence of this provision, which previously existed in the repealed Act of
1872, is the only trump card relied upon by the champions of the alleged rights
of Parsi women married to non-Pars is under the
Special Marriage Act.The issue before
us is, can the mere absence of a provision confer a civil right? In our humble opinion, the answer is a definite NO! India being a secular state, on one hand, and
having given constitutional rights of freedom or religion to individual
citizens as also to religious denominations, on the other, no civil legislation
can have such provisions as may disturb such religious freedom.Who can be a member of a particular religious
denomination of who can have a right to insist on being a member thereof and
being entitled to the use of its religious institutions is determined by the
personal law of that denomination which, again, is based on the precepts,
beliefs and tenets of the religion.Whether
a person continues to be a Parsi, Hindu or Muslim and
whether he/she is entitled to the use of the religious institutions, are
questions for the denomination to decide.It is not surprising, therefore, that the Special Marriage Act is
deliberately silent on this question.

THE RIGHTS (?) OF
INTERMARRIED ZOROASTRIANS

There is a growing move to enroll
non-Parsi spouses and the children of such marriages
as members of certain ParsiZoroastrianAnjumans
and consequently, grant them various rights.The funds and properties of most ParsiZoroastrianAnjumans
in India
are earmarked for the benefit of “Parsi Zoroastrians”
only.Non-Parsi
spouses and their children, in my opinion, are not entitled to the benefit of
these funds and properties.

In short, any person who is not a “Parsi Zoroastrian” cannot exercise any social, religious or political right as far as institutions
earmarked for Parsi Zoroastrians are concerned.The so-called definition of a Parsi provided in the historic judgment delivered by
Justices Davar and Beamon
reported in (1909) 33 ILR 509 and 11Bom.L.R.85 do not, in my opinion, have the force of
law.While it is true that Davar and Beamon have observed
that the Parsi community consists of: (a) Parsis who are descended from the original Persian
emigrants and who are born of both Zoroastrian parents and who profess the
Zoroastrian religion; (b) the Iranis from Persia
professing the Zoroastrian religion; (c) the children of Parsi
fathers by alien mothers who have been duly and properly admitted into the
religion.I am of the view that this
so-called definition is an obiter dictum (i.e., a collateral
opinion/observation of the judge which is not binding).In 1948, an IraniZoroastrian,
in order to escape from the purview of the Parsi
Marriage and Divorce Act, declared that Iranis
professing the Zoroastrian religion are not Parsis
and therefore, not governed by the aforesaid Parsi
Marriage and Divorce Act.Justice
Coyaji
who was presiding over the Parsi
Matrimonial Court upheld the IraniZoroastrians’
contention.The contention was again
upheld in Appeal by Justices Chagla and Gajendragadkar [(1950) 52 B.L.R.876).

Now, if the definition of a Parsi, as given in the Davar-Beamon
judgment, which includes “Iranis from Persia
professing the Zoroastrian religion” was a valid legal definition having the
force of law, why did Justice Coyaji and later,
Justices Chagla and Gajendragadkar
uphold the contention of the Irani Zoroastrian who
declared that Iranis professing the Zoroastrian
religion are not Parsis? The
answer in Justice Chagla’s words: “Now, in the first place this
observation of SirDinshawDavar,
undoubtedly a very great authority on Parsi law, is
an obiter because the question he and Mr.Beamon
had to consider in that case was whether by conversion to the Zoroastrian
faith, a person could become a Parsi.”

Note here, Justice
Chagla’s use of the key words, “observation of SirDinshawDavar” as opposed to the use of the word “held” or “judgement”.In fact,
he clearly states that Davar’s observation “is an
obiter”.

A similar issue in
the case of JamshedIrani vs.BanuIrani [(1966) 68 B.L.R.794] came up before Justice Mody.Justice Mody
also concurred with the views held by Justice Chagla,
“Now so far as that part of the Judgement is
concerned, ChaglaC.J.has pointed out that
it was obiter.....”

It was only after recording fresh
evidence of four eminent scholars (one of whom was Dastur
Dr. H.K.Mirza)
that Justice Mody held that IraniZoroastrians
are Parsis.

Clearly, therefore, Justice Davar’s alleged definition of a Parsi
has no force in law and no less than three eminent sitting Judges have observed
that the so-called definition is “an obiter”.Those who claim that according to the “law of the land”, a Parsi includes “the children of Parsi
fathers by alien mothers who have been admitted into the religion” don’t know
what they are talking about.

There is no law of the land that can
force a priest to perform the so-called navjote of a
child of a Parsi father and a non-Parsi
mother.Of course, there are a few
priests who will even perform the navjote of children
of Parsi mothers and non-Parsi
fathers in anticipation of a fat “ashodad”.